I think the main reason they did not make the transition to (partially) electric cars earlier is that they did not want to cannibalize their business with non-electric cars. Another point is the still-missing charging infrastructure and the (to my limited knowledge) lack of some universal standard for charging stations. The final point is that today potential buyers of electric cars still have many good alternatives that are as much or even more ecological than all-electric cars. If you look e.g. at the new models from Volkswagen or BMW, many of the smaller ones use 4 liters of gasoline / 100 km or less (i.e. > 71 MPG), which is pretty hard to beat in terms of eco-friendliness and efficiency considering that electricity is still much more expensive than gasoline in terms of energy / price.
One driving factor in the transition to partially electric cars might be that there are not many other possibilities left to further increase the efficiency of conventional engines. In fact, most of the increase in efficiency that we have seen in the last decade was not due to better thermodynamic design of the motor block but better control of e.g. the fuel injection through more advanced sensors and electronics. As this optimization path seems to have reached is maximum potential it probably makes a lot of sense to use electric motors to e.g. recover braking energy, which should shave off another few percent in fuel consumption (Toyota already proved the feasibility of this very successfully with their Prius series).
In their home market in Germany electric cars have very little acceptance: expensive, low range, electricity is mostly generated with coal, no infrastructure, ...
The program of the German government to have a million electric cars is largely a failure.
Before there will be a million electric cars in Germany, there will be ten million electric bicycles.
BTW coal makes up for only 20 % of the electricity production in Germany, and most of the coal-based power plants are quite "clean" in the sense that they make good use of the available energy (in most cases the heat waste is used industrially and emissions are heavily filtered).
As I said before, adoption here is mostly a question of availability, cost and efficiency, all three of which need to be improved before customers will see electric cars as a "reasonable" choice.
These are unrealistic industry-produced numbers. This is widely discussed in Germany that these numbers are a joke.
Also forget the massive amount of energy going into the production of these cars and the materials they use. The huge space and infrastructure they are using... we still have air problems in the cities because of the diesel cars.
> 20 % of the electricity production in Germany
Coal has a share of 43.6% of electricity production in Germany.
> in most cases the heat waste is used industrially and emissions are heavily filtered).
The filter ash is going where? The coal is coming from where?
CO2 is not filtered.
It's the US, not Germany, that is excessively wedded to coal generation.
The actual "high speed" charger for the EV1 was 6.6kW, so a 75% charge would take a little under two hours. On a normal NEMA 5-15 socket, a 75% charge would take about ten hours.
To charge at 50kW you'd need DC fast charging technology, which wasn't available until a decade later.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/how-does-gms-fabled-ev1-st...
A full charge of a 16.5kWh battery in 3 hours requires 5.5kW charging power. That's nothing special, and it doesn't come anywhere close to what you'd need to charge 75% in 15 minutes.
I think that a lot of people don't really understand, on a deep level, how living with an EV actually works. Much of the discussion I see seems to be based on the idea that an EV works like a gas car, except you use a plug instead of a nozzle when you fill it up at the station.
I was responding to the parent post absurdly contending a useful automotive charge could be achieved in 15 minutes from a standard wall outlet.
Hybrids are more accepted (I myself wouldn't buy one, but most car makers have hybrid versions of all their popular models) so again I don't see the problem. If anything, having hybrids would open up their markets to a larger consumer base.
I've had two electric cars. I've only charged publicly a few times. Many parking garages have installed chargers. I charge at home in my garage. I wake up every morning with a full charge. Many people who've only owned gas-powered cars don't consider this advantage.
A Nissan Leaf or a BMW i3 can only go 80 to 100 miles on the battery. But that covers the average commute of nearly every American commuter. With a charging place at work, you'd be able to swing a 70 to 100 mile daily commute and never need a public fast-charging infrastructure. If you commute more than 100 miles each direction, an EV may not be for you.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/commute-statistics/
Installing workplace chargers: http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/workplace-charging-challenge...
For long distance driving and fast charging, that's currently a mess. Only Tesla has a respectable offering on that front. It's worth considering that most people don't drive long distances very often.
Tesla has made a huge investment. One might speculate that their proprietary infrastructure will eventually become the standard charging network everyone is waiting for.
Tesla chargers: http://supercharge.info/
Chademo chargers: http://www.chademo.com/wp/usmap/
CHAdeMO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAdeMO
SAE Combo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772#Combined_charging_sy...
Tesla SAE Adapter: http://shop.teslamotors.com/collections/model-s-charging-ada...
The article specifically mentions the 3 series becoming a hybrid (not what type; the ActiveHybrid 3 and ActiveHybrid5 already exist for limited sale), but it also speculates:
"The new range of cars could be driven by separate electric motors powering the front and rear wheels, with a small gasoline engine to generate electricity to extend the range of the batteries"
So, basically, we don't know what their precise plans are, but the article does not indicate that the 3er will have a gas engine powering the wheels.
Yep, it's 'just' a "plug-in hybrid". Good for low emissions and high mileage ... on paper.
It has a larger battery than most plugins, and my daily commute is 98% electric.
Out of ~1300 Volts tracked, 70% of the miles traveled were EV only. Keep your snark out of facts.
If you've got an electric drivetrain, adding a mechanical drivetrain: gearbox, driveshaft, differential, and powered axles, is a lot of additional weight. Powering a generator and transmitting power via electricity to the electric motors you've already got in the wheels makes a lot more sense.
So i've saved half a percent of my total fuel consumption. Useless individually. But of course potentially enormous savings when rolled out to a fleet of thousands of cars
I could see electric motors taking the place of the drive shaft and trans axel arrangement. You could easily add "awd" to many cars by electrically powering the previously non drive wheels. The best use is launching as that is where my mileage dives.
I am not a fan of the i3 because of the compromises made to the iRex for CARB regulations. A slightly larger engine and fuel capacity are warranted.
Ideally what I would like to see for a car the size of mine; small 1 to 1.5l engine capable of driving the wheels direct after speed is reached with electric responsible for getting the car off from stop. Chevy does a great job with the Volt but I think batteries still have a long way to go considering the weight required for so little range most offerings have
I could do all that with my old car "manually", but I only tried it a few times.
However, I was talking about the case of decelerating in neutral with a car having a start-stop-type system. Rolling in neutral is always more efficient if the fuel is also cut off, but often even with the car running on idle.